To many it gives eternal hope, and some of the more 'unfortunates' on this planet, can virtually exist on that alone.

Sadly, the excuse of religion is also so often used by those motivated by envy and greed, and it's this that understandably paints a dark picture of 'faith' in so many human brains.

As for my own beliefs, I'm yet to be convinced, so for now I'm keeping an open mind.

Can I ask; does false hopes help anyone?Religion creates false hopes.At least for poor and less fortunate to find a better life here after.Such false hopes help them not to struggle and fight the odds in life.They leave themselves to "fate" and hope that this life will soon come to an end and they shall find a better life hereafter.Is it not the false hope of going to heavens for Taliban and Al-qaeeda that they slughter thousands of innocent people and also become suicide bombers?And these false hopes are created by RELIGION itself.

Most religions seem to be a form of worship of a higher being or creator as if there is some sort of obligation by the devotee. If there is such a deity and I highly doubt there is then the obligation is on the god not the created. I am responsible for my children not the other way around. Also why were we created to live this "test of life" when we supposedly weren't around in the first place? Is god some sort of ego tripper - has to be worshipped so created a congregation? Seems quite freaky to me and no different to some primitive worshipping a totem pole.

Okay, so basically we have two camps here. One says that religion is bad, one says its good.

On the one hand you can argue that religion brings false hope, and that people practicing it are basically trying to find a way of coping with the world as it is.On the other you could point out that religious people tend to be more empathic then other people.

And you could argue back and forth all day long and still not reach a conclusion.

I'd like to make a reference to another thread that was featured here, and that is the Socialism thread. My point there is the same as here. Religion (Socialism) is a good idea!

However, the institutionalization of said idea is far form perfect. We, human beings, are flawed. We are led by our desires, and more often than not make decisions based on them. And the institution rests on human beings. Therefore the institution itself is flawed.

Now, the real question, at least for me remains, is a group people that abuse children, a group of fanatics and/or a group of indoctrinated sheep a representation of the entire religion, and should religion as such be judged by the actions of a few black sheep?

I say no. Christianity is great the idea of sacrificing oneself for the greater good is a moral and ethical Holy Grail, Islam is good (let us not forget that it was Islam who allowed polygamy to care for the wives and children of the killed Turkish soldiers during the Turkish wars in Europe, Buddism is good because it theaches of a balance, Judaism is gread because it really focuses on the spiritual.

Basically, religions are great, it's the people that are, as always, flawed.Thank you very much!

Basically, religions are great, it's the people that are, as always, flawed.

I will say one thing in favor of religion. It sure made Monty Python's The Life of Brian a lot funnier.

The spiritual leaders of religions are capable of corrupting them for nefarious or simply irrational purposes (same as with socialism). As examples, I'll remind you of the guy who cut off his balls and convinced his followers to join him in committing suicide so they could hook up with the aliens who were travelling behind the comet. Then there's Jimmy Jones in Guyana and his grape KoolAid. He gets credit for the "drank the KoolAid" saying for the faith of political partisans.

The reason this makes religions with preachers automatically suspect is because the followers of religions that rely on authority figures turn over control of their minds or their wills or their actions or something to the authority figures. Religion has been called 'the opiate of the masses' because it both subverts the believer's will and addicts them to control by the supplier. So, if you have a religion that does not have a spiritual leader, it's like having socialism without a government, actions based solely on the will of the individual, not directed by an authority other than the individual's interpretation of the meaning of faith in the religion's context. Such a religion could still be anti-life, but would have few followers, because with few exceptions, followers follow charismatic people more readily than doctrine.

The problem is that if you solve this problem of charisma being exploitable by killing the charismatic leaders, you create Martyrs and all that leaves you with is killing the believers. It's probably better all around to subvert the faith via assimilation into Western culture. It spins the religion into tiny little sects that battle each other.

Only "false" in the eyes of one who does not have them. My religion offers no false hope.

Is not Islam giving false hopes for a heaven for suicide bombers? Its so vivid; every one can see it.And Islam is a religion like all others.And yes, the Koranic verse as translated is" And slaughter them till all the deen (religion) is for god (meanining islam) and there is no fitna (disagreement or disruption).

Is not Islam giving false hopes for a heaven for suicide bombers? Its so vivid; every one can see it.And Islam is a religion like all others.And yes, the Koranic verse as translated is" And slaughter them till all the deen (religion) is for god (meanining islam) and there is no fitna (disagreement or disruption).

Thanks for the quote (could you reference it by any chance?); very interesting.

You only call such hopes false because you do not believe that there is a heaven for these people after death. You speak as though that is absolute fact. Also, you said that "religion" creates false hope; if you mean to generalise in such a way, I simply cannot agree with you.

Can I ask; does false hopes help anyone?Religion creates false hopes.At least for poor and less fortunate to find a better life here after.Such false hopes help them not to struggle and fight the odds in life.They leave themselves to "fate" and hope that this life will soon come to an end and they shall find a better life hereafter.Is it not the false hope of going to heavens for Taliban and Al-qaeeda that they slughter thousands of innocent people and also become suicide bombers?And these false hopes are created by RELIGION itself.

Sorry Sweetpea - you haven't articulated this response well, or in a manner that allows me to respond. Good luck x

Thanks for the quote (could you reference it by any chance?); very interesting.

You only call such hopes false because you do not believe that there is a heaven for these people after death. You speak as though that is absolute fact. Also, you said that "religion" creates false hope; if you mean to generalise in such a way, I simply cannot agree with you.

I am also in the camp that cannot agree.

And there are many instances in life which have genuine proof to the benefit of false hope. The placebo effect being an example. Hope in any respect can be beneficial.

When it comes to whether religion is good or bad I believe this question is far too general, too many variables, too many tangents. There are good points to religion, whether individual or organised...there are also bad points..but the main variable which sways the good/bad dilema are the people themselves. Generally (and i mean very generally) the main good, and the main bad in religion works its way back to an individual level. It is what you make it.

Thanks for the quote (could you reference it by any chance?); very interesting.

You only call such hopes false because you do not believe that there is a heaven for these people after death. You speak as though that is absolute fact. Also, you said that "religion" creates false hope; if you mean to generalise in such a way, I simply cannot agree with you.

By any chance, you mean that the hope kindled in the hearts and minds of suicide bombers is true?I hope you never meant that.Any hope which is created to get heavens in reward to killing innocent men, women and children can never be true.And all religions at some time of the other did create similar hopes in reward to killing its opponents.

By any chance, you mean that the hope kindled in the hearts and minds of suicide bombers is true?I hope you never meant that.Any hope which is created to get heavens in reward to killing innocent men, women and children can never be true.And all religions at some time of the other did create similar hopes in reward to killing its opponents.

All religions?? well isn't that a rather bold generalisation :D And before you get all upset of course I don't support suicide bombers (though i fail to see why you are stuck on this notion of suicide bombers when overall it is a miniscule point in relation to religion in general) but I guess there is no reason to believe their hope isnt true....their beliefs may be asurd and potentially entirely wrong..but their hope can exist easily in the absence of facts or entire religious explanation.

By any chance, you mean that the hope kindled in the hearts and minds of suicide bombers is true?I hope you never meant that.Any hope which is created to get heavens in reward to killing innocent men, women and children can never be true.And all religions at some time of the other did create similar hopes in reward to killing its opponents.

I asked for a reference for the quote you gave from the Qu'ran (you know, page and verse or something).

Your argument is very single issue and not really about religion as a broad topic at all. I was refuting your generalisations and will continue to do so until you can provide solid evidence that "all religions at some time of the other did create similar hopes in reward to killing its opponents." Even if you do provide such evidence, that alone does not, in my opinion, justify the claim that "religion is bad".

I would not like to pretend that I know for certain what becomes of suicide bombers after they die. It is my belief that neither they nor anyone else who dies "gets heavens in reward". However, just because you claim that it "can never be true" does not make it so.

Your entire argument has boiled down to, "Religion is bad because terrorists are religious." I have found you ignorant and disrespectful in many respects.

Saying religion is bad is like saying guns, oil, electricity are bad. Man's perverse use of these things are bad.

Suicide bombing in the name of religion, bad. St. Jude Hospital (Catholic charity) giving free cancer treatment to children, good.Westboro Baptist Church at funerals of fallen soldiers to protest homosexuality, bad.Habitat For Humanity (most Protestant donation funded and volunteer builders) building home for families in need, good.

Guns used to commit murder, robberies, rape, kidnapping, very badGuns used to by a homeowner to prevent his family from being murdered, robbed, raped, or kidnapped, good.

Religion is what one makes it. Some people use it for personal gain, some use it for personal growth. If an inmate in prison "finds God" and is released back into society, and his newly found faith prevents him from committing another horrible crime, then religion was good for him. Whether or not a third party believes in God or religion is irrelevant. His belief led him to do good, or not do bad.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

Religion is a good thing. Let there be no doubt about it. I'm not saying that because I'm a religious fanatic that has a desire to convert everyone to my beliefs, but because in religion you can interpret it to a degree where everyone can fit in. Yes, the Old Testament may say that homosexuality is a sin, but it also says that those that work on the sabbath should be stoned. It may be the word of God, but it's still written by people. Don't take everything in the texts for granted, use some common sense.

Since I'm not well read on any religion and only have mediocre knowledge about my own(Christianity) I can't talk for how Judeism or Hinduism interprets things, but I know that Christianity(at least to me!) is not about following set rules, but following ethics and morals. Two of my more favourite things that can be found in the Bible, The Golden Rule; Do onto others as you wish others to do onto you and Jesus pretty much telling us not to judge people, that's up to God, are rules that pretty much everyone should be able to live by.

We judge too quick on what's right, whether it's sexuality, way of life or political beliefs or whatever.

Religion in itself is not bad. Usually it's all about what moral and ethical standard to follow. It's when you start using it as an excuse/reason for your actions(war and violence) or you convince people to go the conservative way because you want to oppress them(Iran is a great example of that), that's when things starts going to shit. Too many times do people blame religion, and not the actual problem, that is the priests, imams, rabbis and so forth.

I asked for a reference for the quote you gave from the Qu'ran (you know, page and verse or something).

Your argument is very single issue and not really about religion as a broad topic at all. I was refuting your generalisations and will continue to do so until you can provide solid evidence that "all religions at some time of the other did create similar hopes in reward to killing its opponents." Even if you do provide such evidence, that alone does not, in my opinion, justify the claim that "religion is bad".

I would not like to pretend that I know for certain what becomes of suicide bombers after they die. It is my belief that neither they nor anyone else who dies "gets heavens in reward". However, just because you claim that it "can never be true" does not make it so.

Your entire argument has boiled down to, "Religion is bad because terrorists are religious." I have found you ignorant and disrespectful in many respects.

I will search for the exact verse number that I translated earlier.But did the Christians too during the crusades incited to kill muslims and get a reward in this world and the other?Same is what happened with Bhuddists when the ruling Hindu elite did not like it.In fact the door of heavens opening for the worshippers and "true" followers of any religion is a die cast that the preists of any religion may incite against other.Please try to understand my point. I am not against any specific religion; but the concept of religion that gives its followers and true adherents a reward in the form of heavens.

But it's not inherently good or bad. This would be like asking if sex is good or bad, or if marriage is good or bad. It depends...on everything.

There are institutions that have proved harmful for further growth of humanity.Religion as an Institution was good for the mankind when we had not discovered the process of understanding nature and universe.But once we as human beings have attained a maturity that we can look forward and search our path into unknown; we don't need any so called support from the supernatural to emotionally sustain.Religion thereafter became an institution of oppression, hatred and suppression.It now is a useless appendage of the past; just as appendicx in our body.Sooner we get out of the mindset of a supernatural, better can we progress and develop.You brought forth another institution; Marriage.This institution too had its up and down. It was a very useful institution till large segments of human society owned private (landed) property which were to be inherited to biological generation.Once the private property, especially, landed property was not there to be handed down to real biological posterity and the women began to get equal rights in socio- ecocomic setup, the institution of Marrige too started to crumble.Now its living together with love and will and not bounded by any vows from the institution of marriage.I am not here to narrate the slow errosion of marriage institution; but its study is very interesting as it correlates to the slow errosion of the power of Chursh, spread of knowledge, empowerment of women, economic oppurtunities for all and enhancement love and care as equals.

There are institutions that have proved harmful for further growth of humanity.Religion as an Institution was good for the mankind when we had not discovered the process of understanding nature and universe.But once we as human beings have attained a maturity that we can look forward and search our path into unknown; we don't need any so called support from the supernatural to emotionally sustain.Religion thereafter became an institution of oppression, hatred and suppression.It now is a useless appendage of the past; just as appendicx in our body.Sooner we get out of the mindset of a supernatural, better can we progress and develop.You brought forth another institution; Marriage.This institution too had its up and down. It was a very useful institution till large segments of human society owned private (landed) property which were to be inherited to biological generation.Once the private property, especially, landed property was not there to be handed down to real biological posterity and the women began to get equal rights in socio- ecocomic setup, the institution of Marrige too started to crumble.Now its living together with love and will and not bounded by any vows from the institution of marriage.I am not here to narrate the slow errosion of marriage institution; but its study is very interesting as it correlates to the slow errosion of the power of Chursh, spread of knowledge, empowerment of women, economic oppurtunities for all and enhancement love and care as equals.

I just can't completely agree with that. As LX said, religion is not inherently good or bad. It's the application and use/misuse of religion that can be oppressive, hateful, and suppressive.

In my neck of the woods, the Catholic church runs the food bank. Weekly they give out boxes and boxes of food to people who cannot afford to feed their families. Hundreds of boxes of food each week. In addition, they serve hot meals on a daily basis to the homeless. To the people receiving those services, religion is putting food in their bellies.

In a previous life I worked with church youth groups. Every summer I'd take my kids on mission trips where we built/rebuilt homes for the poor. Seeing the appreciation and happiness of mothers and fathers who would now have a suitable home for the children proves to me that some religion and religious beliefs are good. Religion provided them with a roof over their heads.

I personally spent an entire week in the Smokey Mountains splitting wood with axes, sledgehammer/wedge for the poor leaving in a small Kentucky town. Many of whom have no central air or heat and rely on fireplaces and wood burning stoves to heat their homes in the winter. Other people on that same mission trip did similar jobs. All under the banner of the Methodist church. To those people, religion kept them warm on cold winter nights.

When I was a teen, my parents volunteered at church to help with "Meals On Wheels". They'd bring hot, freshly cooked meals to the old and infirmed. Both of my parents got as much out of it as the people they were helping. What should have taken a couple hours took my folks 5 or 6 hours. The people, mostly the elderly, loved the meals. But what they loved more was the physical presence of someone in their home, talking and visiting. Having company for a little while, talking to them, lifted their spirits more than the food. Religion brought comfort to their lives.

Religion isn't bad. It isn't oppressive or hateful or ANYthing. The misapplication of religion by man can be hateful and oppressive. But there are many many good things that people do in the name of religion too.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

I just can't completely agree with that. As LX said, religion is not inherently good or bad. It's the application and use/misuse of religion that can be oppressive, hateful, and suppressive.

In my neck of the woods, the Catholic church runs the food bank. Weekly they give out boxes and boxes of food to people who cannot afford to feed their families. Hundreds of boxes of food each week. In addition, they serve hot meals on a daily basis to the homeless. To the people receiving those services, religion is putting food in their bellies.

In a previous life I worked with church youth groups. Every summer I'd take my kids on mission trips where we built/rebuilt homes for the poor. Seeing the appreciation and happiness of mothers and fathers who would now have a suitable home for the children proves to me that some religion and religious beliefs are good. Religion provided them with a roof over their heads.

I personally spent an entire week in the Smokey Mountains splitting wood with axes, sledgehammer/wedge for the poor leaving in a small Kentucky town. Many of whom have no central air or heat and rely on fireplaces and wood burning stoves to heat their homes in the winter. Other people on that same mission trip did similar jobs. All under the banner of the Methodist church. To those people, religion kept them warm on cold winter nights.

When I was a teen, my parents volunteered at church to help with "Meals On Wheels". They'd bring hot, freshly cooked meals to the old and infirmed. Both of my parents got as much out of it as the people they were helping. What should have taken a couple hours took my folks 5 or 6 hours. The people, mostly the elderly, loved the meals. But what they loved more was the physical presence of someone in their home, talking and visiting. Having company for a little while, talking to them, lifted their spirits more than the food. Religion brought comfort to their lives.

Religion isn't bad. It isn't oppressive or hateful or ANYthing. The misapplication of religion by man can be hateful and oppressive. But there are many many good things that people do in the name of religion too.

Does all that differ much from the performance of an NGO (Non Governmental Organisation)

Does all that differ much from the performance of an NGO (Non Governmental Organisation)

I don't understand the question? Churches and religious organizations aren't Governmental. Do they differ from other NGO's? It isn't relevant. For the churches or congregants performing these volunteer activities it is their faith that leads them to help. Their belief that they should help those that are less fortunate is based in their religious teachings. Many of those people would volunteer without religion backing them. Many would not.

I understand you're point, you're anti religion. That is your right to believe. But your belief doesn't make it factual that all religion is bad all the time for all reasons. There is good in religous people. And millions upon millions of people have received help or assistance or happiness because of religion. To THEM, religion is beneficial.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

there is no good or bad if you are talking about religion, its all depends on people themselves. religion is supposed to be a guidance for you through out your life, to give you some kind of direction. if you understand the religion the right away and not to push your belief to somebody else, then its a good thing.

because all the religions (christian, islam, catholic, hinduism, buddhism are what i am talking about here, because i dont really know about other religions out there) teach the same thing, to love yourself and the people around you. LOVE is the key word for all religions.

I think there is good in some religious people. But I believe that as soon as the human race evolves past its need for a belief in an almighty ghost (god) that the world will become a much better place. But its the people that already had the good in them, even without religion they would have done good things.

I don't understand the question? Churches and religious organizations aren't Governmental. Do they differ from other NGO's? It isn't relevant. For the churches or congregants performing these volunteer activities it is their faith that leads them to help. Their belief that they should help those that are less fortunate is based in their religious teachings. Many of those people would volunteer without religion backing them. Many would not.

I understand you're point, you're anti religion. That is your right to believe. But your belief doesn't make it factual that all religion is bad all the time for all reasons. There is good in religous people. And millions upon millions of people have received help or assistance or happiness because of religion. To THEM, religion is beneficial.

I think you missed my point.I am not against RELIGION. I think and honestly feel that religion has outlived it utility.It does not help in further growth or development of human race.Religion rather suppresses the process of thinking that can take us forward.It was a helpful tool when humanity did not know the process of understanding.Then we did need some help from a God above to have emotional support.Now that mankind has progressed, this institution has outlived it utility and is one of the reasons for suicide bombers and killings of each other.We should therefore discard this institution, as we have discarded kingship, dictatorship etc.

I don't understand the question? Churches and religious organizations aren't Governmental. Do they differ from other NGO's? It isn't relevant. For the churches or congregants performing these volunteer activities it is their faith that leads them to help. Their belief that they should help those that are less fortunate is based in their religious teachings. Many of those people would volunteer without religion backing them. Many would not.

I understand you're point, you're anti religion. That is your right to believe. But your belief doesn't make it factual that all religion is bad all the time for all reasons. There is good in religous people. And millions upon millions of people have received help or assistance or happiness because of religion. To THEM, religion is beneficial.

I think you missed my point.I am not against RELIGION. I think and honestly feel that religion has outlived it utility.It does not help in further growth or development of human race.Religion rather suppresses the process of thinking that can take us forward.It was a helpful tool when humanity did not know the process of understanding.Then we did need some help from a God above to have emotional support.Now that mankind has progressed, this institution has outlived it utility and is one of the reasons for suicide bombers and killings of each other.We should therefore discard this institution, as we have discarded kingship, dictatorship etc.

I am not against RELIGION. I think and honestly feel that religion has outlived it utility.

So you're not against religion but you don't think anyone should be religious (because it's useless)? It sounds like you're against religion, which is fine but you should just say that.

nashinaz wrote:

It does not help in further growth or development of human race.Religion rather suppresses the process of thinking that can take us forward.

Religion has changed the way I think about the world and turned me into a more thoughtful and respectful citizen. My faith has enabled me to create more value in my own life and in the lives of those I interact with.

But yeah, definitely suppressing progress.

nashinaz wrote:

It was a helpful tool when humanity did not know the process of understanding.Then we did need some help from a God above to have emotional support.Now that mankind has progressed, this institution has outlived it utility and is one of the reasons for suicide bombers and killings of each other.

Again with the suicide bombers. Have you read ANY of the posts that have responded to your single-minded, ridiculous posts? No person I know, religious or otherwise, advocates the actions of those individuals with whom you are so apparently obsessed. What they do is terrible but they are not a reason to condemn all religion.

Are you saying humans have outgrown the need for something to believe in, something that gives them hope that they can transform their lives or that all their suffering isn't in vain? If so, I can say with absolute certainty that you are wrong.

nashinaz wrote:

We should therefore discard this institution, as we have discarded kingship, dictatorship etc.

I assume by "kingship" you mean monarchy, something that many nations (including my own) have NOT discarded (and have no intention to do so any time soon). Further, as religion lives in the hearts of man, it will never disappear, no matter how much you rant about suicide bombers.

I feel sorry for you that you harbour such anger and mistrust in your heart.

I assume by "kingship" you mean monarchy, something that many nations (including my own) have NOT discarded (and have no intention to do so any time soon). Further, as religion lives in the hearts of man, it will never disappear, no matter how much you rant about suicide bombers.

I feel sorry for you that you harbour such anger and mistrust in your heart.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.